Slashdot Mirror
Critical Review of the Zune
ceallaigh writes "Andy Ihnatko of the Chicago Sun-Times has a critical review of the Zune. "Avoid," is my general message. The Zune is a square wheel, a product that's so absurd and so obviously immune to success that it evokes something akin to a sense of pity."
This is daft. Is the DRM imposed by the client or the server Zune? What if a band wants to promote their music by, for example, setting up free downloads of selected tracks after a concert? Why should everything go through the Zune store? Also, is there any way to get a server other than another Zune to interface with the thing wirelessly?
I hope this product does become popular enough for many different hacked firmwares to be released. Seems like a decent hardware with shitty firmware, but that's correctable :) - that's what I call "product support"...
-b.
I hate replying to myself, but I got cut off midthought.
My thought is that ms worked closly with the RIAA on this player, put decent amount of force behind it, looking to see it flop. Once it flops the next version they can tell the RIAA to kindly piss off because their ideas don't work. The next model might actauly be a good product (or the third release if they stay true to form.)
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
You know...I think the zune may indeed become a valuable toy to play with...once someone out there rips it apart software/os wise.....possibly puts linux on it...and makes it a general use player. I'd think the built-in wireless on this would make that worthwhile...
I'll wait till this thing is thoroughly 'hacked'......and someone take what may be decent hardware (just guessing here), and makes it useful with non MS and non-RIAA backed 'prisonware'......once opensource works on this, it may be worth getting.
Till then...I'll wait and get one on eBay for a good price....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I don't agree that it is inexcusable. This is about normal for Microsoft and it is expected. Microsoft has a lot to loose on two edges of the sword.
The first edge is about the loss to the music industry. If they can't satisfy the demands of those guys and if they violate the music industry directives (for a lack of better words) in any way they could suffer the long term. If they implement a feature that allows Zune users the ability to too freely break the rules then the end result would be lawsuits. So, Microsoft joined the ranks of the DRM nightmare inclined--and the Zune users are going to pay.
On the second edge of the sword Microsoft has to take over the DRM industry or they will fail. Apple has that now. What I mean by the DRM industry is that they must take control of the technology that implements DRM in every household and every pocketbook. If they don't they loose to Apple and they will never gain their monopoly status in Content Rights Management (CRM).
Bill Gates said that computers are no longer primarily used to create content, instead they are used to consume it. He knows this is the bandwagon to get up on and to ride it out. He wants total control of all content on computers and that means CRM (the software used to create it) (DRM, et al).
DRM and CRM are the OS of protected data. Whomever controls that controls content and thus controls a lot of other markets. They can then begin to dictate things just as Apple was successfully able to dictate the price of music to the music industry. Steve Jobs was the greedy one in the pricing when that was being debated, IMHO. It is hard to see it until you recognize that he controls the DRM for 70% of the market.
Bottom line, unless Microsoft succumbs to the music industry to start they can't get industry players on board. Unless they take over the DRM and CRM control they'll never get the music industry (or any other industry producing protected content) to come on board. Considering their blatant failure to maintain backwards compatibility one can only guess they have fallen on their own sword on this one.
Hopefully, some realize that we can't let Microsoft get control of the DRM and become a monopoly in CRM like they did the OS. If they do then we'll have high and inflexible prices on our content as well.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I agree with you BWJones, that forcing users to use a particular bit of software with an mp3 player is the kiss of death. In fact, this type of limitation is a big black mark for any type of hardware as far as I'm concerned. Yesterday, I bought a SanDisk Cruzer 2gig flash drive. When I plugged it in, I found that it had some dopey software that ran upon insertion and a whole bunch of nonsense that curiously resembled spyware. And no simple way to just format the whole thing and use it as I wish. (I was able to figure it out, but I had to waste almost as much time as it took me to open the horrific plastic display shield the product came in. (This is a completely different issue, but the Cruzer had about the worst packaging I've ever had to deal with. I finally had to use a pair of poultry shears and an exacto-knife to open the package).
The one "feature" of the Zune that a lot of the reviewers don't seem to mention is the way it integrates DRM in the most limiting way. Here's a news flash to mp3 player manufacturers: Let me use the thing as mass storage and don't try to play rights-police with me. Leave that problem to the entertainment business and just sell me hardware that works. I want to be able to drag files on and off my player the same way I do with a hard drive.
That's some free advice, by the way, and everyone I know who uses a portable media player feels the same way. Ignore it at your own risk.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you change the following sentence from:
The Zune is a square wheel, a product that's so absurd and so obviously immune to success that it evokes something akin to a sense of pity.
to:
Windows 3.x is a square wheel, a product that's so absurd and so obviously immune to success that it evokes something akin to a sense of pity.
You'll realize that this is just a typical Microsoft "throw something out there" first effort. It was obviously never intended to be an iPod killer, or even to be successful at any particular level. However, you can bet your MP3 player (whatever it is) that there are a bunch of someones at Microsoft reading every public comment about the Zune that they can get their eyeballs on. It's just as important to know what customers think is stupid or otherwise dislike as it is to know what they do like (they need only look at the iPod for that information.) That's Marketing 101, and if nothing else Microsoft does know how to market.
Windows 1.x, 2.x and 3.x truly sucked at pretty much every level but at least 3.1 made a lot of money. Windows 95, for all it's many flaws made even more money, and 98+ made even more money. Don't expect anything positive for the first few years after Microsoft enters a particular market. Historically, they usually fail economically (if not technologically) at anything but operating systems and office suites anyway, but given time they could do well in the portable media player market.
Either way, Apple had best not rest on its laurels for too long. Microsoft isn't the only competitor out there that wants a piece of the iPod pie.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
About the sound quality -
this is pretty much a non-issue nowadays. I'm a recording engineer with nearly 20 years of experience behind me and have lived and worked through the whole digital audio transition in tedious detail. At the end of the eighties most 16-bit DACs sounded like garbage - even on machines worth (at the time) several thousand dollars. Domestic CD player DACs were, to my ears, horrific at this time with a few exceptions but during the passing years things improved quite quickly. For instance, around 92-95, cheapish semi-pro devices started sounding pretty good (like portable DATs and stereo samplers) and quite quickly this became the case in domestic machines too. I became used to this fact (digital audio now sounds good!) so that when I bought a 3rd gen iPod about 3 years ago I didn't even bother check what the quality was like - I knew it was going to be good because of the general advance in chipsets available to the designers. The only thing I'd worry about is interference from electronics onto the analogue amps producing artefacts that are very quiet but annoying like hearing the HD controller work or things like that. One of the reasons I love the pod is that I've never heard that at all. So I think the review reflects this mindset - digital audio is basically good now with few exceptions.
(Having said all this, my new Samsung phone with built-in MP3 player sounds like crap but this is I suspect because of custom chips being designed to fit a tiny form factor and too much emphasis on features rather than quality).
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
I disagree.
.files containing attributes, I have to go to the terminal and pull a find /Volumes/iRiver -name ".*" -print -delete just to remove ugly .files everywhere.
I own both an iRiver iHP-120 and an Apple iPod.
The iHP, I have to manage all my files manually. I drag over the folders into the directory I want and bingo, it's done. However, that takes time and effort. If I rip new music on to my computer, (which I do often, I'm a musician) I have to figure out what folders are already on there and which aren't. Plus because I'm on a mac, and OS X generates all sorts of hidden
With my iPod, all my new music I rip in iTunes is placed neatly in my music library that I don't have to look at. All I do is plug in my iPod to charge, and *poof* all my new music is updated onto the device! I don't have to take time to dick around with folders, figuring out which songs I've added since my last manual update. As a boost, all the artwork is on there too, and I'm a meticulous tagger, so everything has art.
There are some nice benefits to the iRiver, of course, such as OGG support and a built in recorder, but over all, the iPod + iTunes experience has it beat, hands down.
Shouldn't You expect more from your DJ?
I'm a bigtime Microsoft fan. Yes, there are some out there, and I am one of them. (Xbox, 2 Xbox 360's, 3 XP machines, mice, etc. etc. etc.)
I *wanted* to buy a Zune, I really did. I wanted it to integrate in with everything else I own/run.
I was hot to do it until I found out that it didn't integrate in with Windows Media Player....WTF? I have years of files integrated into that player. Microsoft has been pushing it forever, and I went with it. I do like WMP- I think it's a pretty nice piece of software. In fact the only reason I never bought an iPod is because it won't integrate with WMP.
So when Microsoft came out with a player that didn't integrate with its core piece of media software, I thought that was a travesty. But, I was still willing to drink their Kool-Aid...until I found out they don't support Audible.com files.
It's amazing that a DRM infested piece of equipment like this doesn't support DRM infested Audible.com files. It seems like a match made in heaven (for them...) but somehow this failed to happen.
So, no Windows Media Player support...no Audible.com support. I just couldn't bring myself to buy one.
So instead I bought a Creative Zen MicroPhoto. Which became a brick the instant I upgraded the firmware to support Audible.com. I returned that and bought an iRiver Clix.
The Clix is nice- good interface, works well. The Audible.com upgrade didn't go too well (I had to use my wife's computer, because mine wouldn't recognize it) but I eventually got it. But instead of a 30+ Gig powerhouse with video, I ended up with a 2GB flash player. (Does video, but only 15fps)
I would have bought a Toshiba Gigabeat, or one of the new Sansa players, but they don't support Audible.com, and I need that.
Okay, last little bit of my rant here...I do NOT mind paying for content, doesn't bother me one bit. I would RATHER use Audible.com than BitTorrent because I think that artists and writers deserve to be paid for their work. But over the last year I have resorted to downloading at least a dozen books using BitTorrent because Audible.com sucks ass. Not only is the DRM a piece of crap, but the quality of the audio on their files blows.
Should I have gone with the Gigabeat and just used BitTorrent (yay UTorrent!) to get my audiobooks? Possibly...because I don't think that Audible.com deserves any money because they suck. But overall I would rather be guilt-free. But the day that there is a reasonable alternative to the big players (Apple/Audible) I will jump on it immediately. Really, when will they realize that their DRM only frustrates legitimate customers, and those who want to steal are going to do it anyway?
No reason to lie.
I used to occasionally pirate songs (prior to itunes) and would toss the actual artists a few dollars in snail mail directly, the responses I got from a lot of the small bands was simply amazing. T-Shirts, signed *real* photographs, cd's (lol), etc... and when I say a few dollars, I don't mean 20$ I mean 5$ or 10$. I got some interesting letters from bands too saying this is more money for a cd of theirs or a song or whatever than they would have seen selling over 100 through normal channels and that they greatly appreciated it. Shrug.
The RIAA really helps screw the artists, as do the labels, and sure, some pirates are screwing the artists too. Most however are young kids who can't afford to buy the music in the first place... so they're not screwing the artist they're making them more popular.
Listener who bought CD > Listener who wouldn't/couldn't buy CD > Someone who doesn't listen
Shadus
One year worth of WMA content at 128 Mbps would be 1 year in seconds (60 * 60 * 24 * 365) times 128, divided by 8, in megabytes. That's 481 terabytes. I humbly suggest that if your music library is 481 terabytes large, none of these solutions to managing it is satisfactory.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199